Mr. Speaker, Canada's young people are facing a stark reality, record high unemployment.

Last week's OECD report indicated that youth unemployment is reaching historically high levels around the world, and it is a trend of prolonged unemployment with long-term impacts on the next generation's finances and health.

That reality demands action, action from the government that is supposed to be looking ahead at the future and looking to support the next generation.

We need a job strategy that looks beyond summer jobs to year-round solutions, working with young people and employers in the public, not for profit and private sectors who are seeking to work with young people.

We need to look at education. For far too long successive federal governments have failed to take a leadership role in making post-secondary education affordable and accessible to young Canadians. Thanks to the NDP amendment to the 2005 budget, northern Manitoba, our region, will see a new campus and significant investments in the University College of the North.

We need leadership, broad leadership, from the government in order to stop the trend where our generation might not be as well off as those before us, and instead—

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberal leader announced his plans to force his MPs to keep the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, the Liberal member for Malpeque has decided to ignore the wishes of farmers and constituents, and has said he will support the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. He used to say, “I'm inclined to vote against the long-gun registry because I don't believe it has been as effective as the original intent--”.

However, now the member for Malpeque has changed his tune. He now believes that being forced to ignore his constituents is an example of the Liberal leader's outstanding leadership.

It is disappointing to see that the member for Malpeque is putting his own political interests in Ottawa ahead of standing up for his constituents in P.E.I. Clearly, the member for Malpeque appears more concerned with his leader's position than that of his constituents.

It is time for the member for Malpeque to stand up for farmers, stand up for his constituents, and vote against the long gun registry.

Mr. Speaker, it was 40 years ago today, on April 29, 1970, that the first seven members of the Parti Québécois were elected.

On that day, 23% of Quebec voters put their trust for the first time in a party that would change Quebec's political scene by carrying the dream and the hopes of a people and a whole nation, and by defending the ideals of social democracy.

From that day on, Robert Burns, Claude Charron, Marcel Léger, Charles-Henri Tremblay, Guy Joron, Camille Laurin and Lucien Lessard would promote these aspirations in the National Assembly.

Incidentally, it was in that election that, for the first time, the Parti Québécois presented candidates in every riding of Quebec.

From then on, the sovereignist movement would be able to rely on democratically elected representatives to promote the reason why René Lévesque created the Parti Québécois, namely to achieve Quebec's sovereignty.

I invite all Quebeckers to take part in the celebrations commemorating this historic event and the long road that has been travelled since. These celebrations are taking place this evening, in Montreal. Bravo!

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Bloc Québécois joined the Conservatives to prevent groups fighting to keep the firearms registry from being heard at the hearings on that registry.

The Bloc has decided that it would be better to substitute pro-gun lobbyists for these groups. They would rather hear people like Tony Bernardo, who believes that by saving nine lives annually, gun control has an insignificant impact.

The Bloc wants to hear marginal groups who absolutely do not reflect the Quebec consensus in favour of keeping the registry.

And who are those groups that may have to sit on the sidelines because of the Bloc's totally irresponsible and unforgivable behaviour? It is groups like the Association des étudiants de Polytechnique, the Dawson Committee for Gun Control, the Government of Québec, the Association des directeurs de police du Québec, the Fédération des femmes du Québec, the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, the Association québécoise de prévention du suicide, the Regroupement des maisons pour—

Mr. Speaker, as of today, it has been one month since the Liberal leader has bothered to pose a question on Canada's economy. The last time he asked a question, he proposed raising Canadians' taxes.

Since March 29, the Liberal leader has been more focused on whipping his MPs to support the long gun registry, supposed scandals, and his own book tour rather than the most important issue facing Canadians: the economy.

Avoiding mentioning the economy is a deliberate strategy for the Liberal leader, since Canadians know of his plan to raise taxes. Whether it is proposing a GST hike, promoting a carbon tax or proposing job-killing business taxes, raising taxes is the only policy the Liberal leader is consistent on.

Whereas the Liberal leader threatens our economy, our government is taking action to improve our economy through year two of Canada's economic action plan. We are securing economic recovery in Canada by building jobs and growth across the country.

The Liberal leader has no interest in our economy because he is not in it for Canadians, he is just in it for himself.

Mr. Speaker, let me very clear. We would not be having this debate about documents if it were not for the government, which made all these documents public. It was the government that put all these documents before a parliamentary committee. That is transparency.

This government brought in tough new laws on lobbying. Every Canadian lobbyist is expected to follow the act. If the member opposite has any evidence of anyone not obeying the law, he should follow the Prime Minister's lead and forward it to the lobbying commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, it is troubling that Mr. Jaffer knew he could get privileged access through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. Mr. Jaffer did so because he knew the member had been given authority over one billion dollars of government funds and therefore he and the Conservative government could get around their own accountability act.

What other ministers have delegated authority to their parliamentary secretaries in this irresponsible way as a designed way to get around the accountability act?

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary secretaries assist their ministers in the House, in committee and with departmental work, but all responsibilities remain with ministers. That cannot be delegated.

Let us contrast the actions of our government with the previous Liberal government. Mr. Jaffer got no grants, got no money as a result of any of his meetings. Compare this to the previous Liberal government when millions of dollars went missing and the Liberal Party found itself in a position where it had to return some of the kickbacks it had received from taxpayers. Shame on the Liberal Party. We got $1 million back from the Liberal Party. We want the extra $39 million.

Mr. Speaker, when a parliamentary secretary is lobbied directly, especially by a former Conservative MP and unregistered lobbyist, red flags should have gone up. However, none did because those Conservatives knew exactly what they were trying to get away with. They even had the audacity to keep dealing with Mr. Jaffer as recently as last month after he had been charged with possession of cocaine and drunk driving.

Will the Prime Minister, who deliberately created this loophole in his own law, now close it?

Mr. Speaker, the Lobbying Act is very important legislation. It is this government, it is the Prime Minister who strengthened that as our first order of business because of the huge transgressions and robbery that accused under the Liberal Party and kickbacks that made its way into the hands of Liberal insiders.

This government put in place an independent lobbying commissioner. If the member opposite has any information with respect to improper activities, he should follow the lead of the Prime Minister and forward that to the appropriate authority.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment confirmed that his director of regional affairs met with Rahim Jaffer to talk about a funding application for a specific project.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that the project in question was the TransAlta Keephills project near Edmonton? Can he also tell the House whether Mr. Jaffer or his partner lobbied Natural Resources Canada, the minister of the department or his parliamentary secretary?